Da Blob

[Puffy]

Hai

I know it has already been asked in the "Reality of Christianity" thread by other members, but is it possible someone could let me know why Da Blob was banned recently?

I don't desire to question any mod's judgement, and, I know, I know, "this isn't a democracy!!" and all that jazz.

It just seems a shame that someone who has been here for such a long time and contributed over 4000 posts should just suddenly disappear and not at least be enquired about.

For all I know it is a temporary ban, but, just in case, as his tag went:

"DA BLOB WAS HERE"

 

[Awaken]

That is weird. How do we know he was really banned and did not just change his user title? Im just confused and would also like to know.

On a side note: Is there a thread dedicated to who the mods are in the forum and who has been recently banned? If not, I think there should be.

 

[Puffy]

I'm not sure regarding the threads.

And it is possible that Blob did that (it might not be a usable tag anymore I'm not sure) he just never came across as a troll -

*interrupted by giggling*

"Oi! Noddy! Stop that, it's silly."

I jest, I jest. But he never came across as a prankster...

 

[Fukyo]

I don't desire to question any mod's judgement, and, I know, I know, "this isn't a democracy!!" and all that jazz.

Well, I'm going to, because this is just ridiculous. Somebody obviously banned for reasons less than justifiable (note the christian prejudice on the forums) because he's a long standing member with no history of trolling, harassment and such.

 

[Melkor]

I don't think it's a problem with Christians so much as a problem with perceived bigotry, sheer stubbornness during discussions and a lack of evidence based arguing.

There are a few well respected and pleasant Christians here, whom are very intellectual and cultured about their beliefs. They do have a hard job though, of course they do, regardless of the small numbers of actual INTPs here, we did come here under the presumption that we where INTPs, meaning we are likely every bit as critical and analytical.

INTP's are never keen to accept something so rooted in intra-personal emotion and unsubstantiated mysticism.

Da blob amused me, for what it's worth, but I suspect his 'I speak through God's spiritual magicks, thus everything I say is the whole truth' approach would have riled some, especially on a forum which upholds INTP values. He wasn't the sort to agree to disagree, so he may have gotten himself in trouble behind the scenes.

Although, I do find it curious that Emperor Ragnar ordered a pride of lions not two weeks ago...

 

[Agent Intellect]

I also question the mods judgments. This seems like it's banning simply because they disagree with what he's saying. I've probably had more disagreements and debates with Blob than anyone on this site, but nothing he's said or done seemed worthy of getting banned because of it.

Seems like back in the day banning happened rarely and only after it became clear that a lot of people had very strong feelings about the way someone was acting. Now it just seems to be whenever a moderator is feeling grumpy and wants to vent. What gives?

 

[NoID10ts]

Maybe it was at Blob's request because he wanted to be forced to concentrate on something else (?). He was annoying as hell, but I wouldn't have banned him, either, at least not for anything he did publicly.

Puffy, unless something has changed, they don't allow "Banned" to be used in the user title. Loveofreason changed my user title to "Banned" a long time ago to freak me out and it stuck until master and commander came along and revoked it with a rather rude and insulting PM (he didn't know how it came to be in the first place, apparently).

 

[Puffy]

Well, I'm going to, because this is just ridiculous. Somebody obviously banned for reasons less than justifiable (note the christian prejudice on the forums) because he's a long standing member with no history of trolling, harassment and such.

I think I said that only because I've yet to know why he's been banned (and I'm just a bit conflict aversive.)

If it is because of his usual standard of posts then I don't think a banning is fair. Even if they were defined as "bigotrous, stubborn and with lack of evidence" his posts haven't changed much in tone since I've been here over the last two years. Legal systems use precedent for a reason, if the precedent of his prior 4000 posts were deemed fine, suddenly changing just makes the system touchy and me uneasy, as then I think "well, what do I have to say before I'm banned?"

Maybe it's behind the scenes, maybe people were complaining, I don't know, I'll assume their reasons are good until I hear them.

 

[Puffy]

Maybe it was at Blob's request because he wanted to be forced to concentrate on something else (?). He was annoying as hell, but I wouldn't have banned him, either, at least not for anything he did publicly.

Puffy, unless something has changed, they don't allow "Banned" to be used in the user title. Loveofreason changed my user title to "Banned" a long time ago to freak me out and it stuck until master and commander came along and revoked it with a rather rude and insulting PM (he didn't know how it came to be in the first place, apparently).

Thanks for clarifying.

As far as I'm aware I thought the mods said they wouldn't ban accounts on request, though. I remember Abe making a thread about it a while ago and being denied.

 

[Melkor]

Hrm.

I've never liked the habit of forums in banning people with little in the way of structure or debate preceding it. I wonder if Da Blob was even given a reason?

I like how the INFJs do it, with a discussion period involving all the mods and a public trial of sorts before the actual banning is put through.

Although they are civilised after all, and hyper sensitive about anything rude, unjust or naughty.;P

You're quite right though, there is no evidence in the open that incriminates him, so I am curious now.

Of course neither must we jump to conclusions, for offences can be committed via private messaging and insulting posts can be deleted.

We can ask him when he gets back.

(And if he simply changed his title to 'banned' and hid his online status, he's getting a massive hi-five from me.)

 

[kantor1003]

I heard with a mod yesterday and judging from the reply it seems they just got tired of him.

 

[NoID10ts]

I heard with a mod yesterday and judging from the reply it seems they just got tired of him.

I was tired of him by his 20th post, but I still wouldn't have banned him. The only banning I've supported is for people who were obviously and intentionally betraying the trust of others on the forum. I may not have agreed with Blob, but I trusted that he was being authentic to himself and with the forum.

BUT, I didn't lose any sleep over this last night.

If the mods ever accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior, I guess I can expect a banning shortly thereafter.

 

[Jennywocky]

I lost internet when I tried to post something earlier... <<-- oh noes, sign from god!

... I'm not much for restricting speech either, regardless of whether I agree with what is being said. But free speech issues aside, letting a member of that type dominate discussion does have deletrious impact on the forum over the long term.

For example, one reason I rarely participate on this forum nowadays, aside from time shortage which is another key factor, was Blob constantly dragging down the level of discussion in topics I typically enjoy. He typically dominated any thread he was in with the same old unchanging rhetoric, which tended to kill/deaden threads; and even though I've had him on Ignore for probably a year, I would tire of entering a thread and seeing a good 1/3 - 1/2 of the posts blanked out because they were by him, and then seeing a chunk of the remaning posts arguing with him about something.

So how many members left and/or did not participate in threads that Blob would enter, simply because it wasn't worth dealing with him or the direction he'd take things? Was Blob's active membership here worth however many of members restrained their posting activity or left for greener pastures after tiring of him?

Having done the moderation thing and running across a minority of posters who do have a deletrious impact on forum discussion, I could see a case being made in this regard, at long last. Maybe it should have been earlier. Madmins really are the "forum guardians"; they not only protect against acute violations of FAQ that disrupt forum life but also can help shape and cultivate the forum. I guess one just has to be careful to determine accurately what is merely a diverse but worthwhile plant vs a weed that chokes out the life of other plants.

If the mods ever accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior, I guess I can expect a banning shortly thereafter.

Nonsense... they'll need a small population of apostates to try to convert.

 

[Anthile]

Hello. I don't know why Blob was banned and I didn't find any notes in the mod box. I haven't read the faith threads in quite a while but from what I've gathered in the past few hours there doesn't seem to be anything banworthy. Maybe there was something else going on but at the moment I knows as much as everybody else.
Of course Blob has always been controversial but we agreed a long time ago to not ban him unless he'd seriously cross the line.

 

[Architect]

Blob constantly dragging down the level of discussion in topics I typically enjoy. He typically dominated any thread he was in with the same old unchanging rhetoric, which tended to kill/deaden threads; and even though I've had him on Ignore for probably a year, I would tire of entering a thread and seeing a good 1/3 - 1/2 of the posts blanked out because they were by him, and then seeing a chunk of the remaning posts arguing with him about something.

So how many members left and/or did not participate in threads that Blob would enter, simply because it wasn't worth dealing with him or the direction he'd take things? Was Blob's active membership here worth however many of members restrained their posting activity or left for greener pastures after tiring of him?

Agreed, I avoid any discussions with him in it because the guy isn't conducive to conducting a rational conversation.

 

[Awaken]

Agreed, I avoid any discussions with him in it because the guy isn't conducive to conducting a rational conversation.

I somewhat agree with this as well, but I fear that this is because I find "faith" and "subjectivity" to be an irrational qualifier. Both of which Da Blob was a staunch advocate for. He seemed like an intelligent individual, so his stances always confused the hell out of me. However, it gave me a glimpse into a different world, more specifically that of faith, so I did not mind it that much. If I thought all INTP's thought just like me, I would just stay in my head all day because what would be the point of a forum of yes men?

Given this, I still have an uneasy feeling about this ban. I know I have not been here very long and dont necessarily know all the past history/ins and outs of the forum, but it just feels......odd. Like reverse persecution. From what I could tell, he was not proselytizing in inappropriate subforums . He pretty much seemed to keep his discussion relevant to the subforum in question, which made me not see much of a problem with his posts. To me, "adequate argumentation" is a slippery slope of an excuse for banning someone. Especially in a religious /philosophical context.

However, if people really thought he was that disruptive then I guess that is another thing. I just want to go on record as saying, I still dont get/like it(FWIW). If Da Blob came on the forum suggesting he was not INTP, then I could see how it would be disruptive(with negative connotations), but as far as I can tell he was INTP and thus I feel even more uneasy about this decision. There should be a place for him here as well.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.........Im done with the topic now.

 

[NoID10ts]

So how many members left and/or did not participate in threads that Blob would enter, simply because it wasn't worth dealing with him or the direction he'd take things? Was Blob's active membership here worth however many of members restrained their posting activity or left for greener pastures after tiring of him?

You make some good points. I have to admit, I've taken long breaks from this place before, in part, because of him. I suspect I'm not alone in that.

 

[kantor1003]

I like Da Blob. I have also been surprised, during the course of my stay here, at how many plain insults I've seen thrown at him without him retorting to similar attacks.

 

[Felan]

I like Da Blob. I have also been surprised, during the course of my stay here, at how many plain insults I've seen thrown at him without him retorting to similar attacks.

I've seen him throw lots of insults and I have mockingly insulted him back using the exact words he used on occassion.

 

[kantor1003]

I've seen him throw lots of insults and I have mockingly insulted him back using the exact words he used on occassion.

Ah, ok, I must have failed to notice his insults then.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

If Da Blob came on the forum suggesting he was not INTP, then I could see how it would be disruptive(with negative connotations), but as far as I can tell he was INTP and thus I feel even more uneasy about this decision.

How? From what I've gathered, there's a large number of people here who are not INTPs. How could Blob's INTPness disrupt the general flow of day-to-day forum life?

In regard to the rest of this thread:
I must admit a somewhat apathetic nature. I wasn't that familiar with Blob or his posts (Although, I do see what people are saying about avoiding threads that he's been on) and I don't much care. Conversely, the lack of an apparent reason for banning him is slightly disconcerting. But as long as the mods, in all their wisdom, do not turn an irrational, hateful Eye O' Banning on me, I don't think it makes much of a difference.

So I guess my main point is: Why does it matter all that much? He was one guy who got banned. I dunno if it's just that I don't understand (more than likely) or that I'm a terrible person and douchebag (also likely)... but yeah... I don't get what all the fuss is about

 

[cheese]

Bring Blob Back!

 

[Felan]

Bring Blob Back!

We need some Cheese to trap the Blob and contain him safely!

 

[Puffy]

How? From what I've gathered, there's a large number of people here who are not INTPs. How could Blob's INTPness disrupt the general flow of day-to-day forum life?

In regard to the rest of this thread:
I must admit a somewhat apathetic nature. I wasn't that familiar with Blob or his posts (Although, I do see what people are saying about avoiding threads that he's been on) and I don't much care. Conversely, the lack of an apparent reason for banning him is slightly disconcerting. But as long as the mods, in all their wisdom, do not turn an irrational, hateful Eye O' Banning on me, I don't think it makes much of a difference.

So I guess my main point is: Why does it matter all that much? He was one guy who got banned. I dunno if it's just that I don't understand (more than likely) or that I'm a terrible person and douchebag (also likely)... but yeah... I don't get what all the fuss is about

Sorry, I couldn't resist this as a response:

"First they came for the communists,
And I didn't speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn't speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
And I didn't speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me,
And there was no one left to speak out for me."

Just a joke, I don't take this that seriously, your "as long as they don't target me" comment prompted it.

I like Jennywocky's explanation as well. I don't totally agree, but it makes sense.

@cheese: I guess this just feels like a good opportunity for mods to communicate what is and is not acceptable behaviour - this case is ambiguous to us, so as you said it's a little disconcerting, and would likely benefit clarification.

 

[Words]

His posts weren't purely religion-centric, and I thought he was sharing some fascinating line-of-thinking in this ...barren and relatively inactive forum. Not that my opinion should matter, just a comment like any other comment.

 

[cheese]

The heat of the mods' hate for Blob will melt me, allowing him to escape!

Or he could just eat his way out.

 

[Awaken]

How? From what I've gathered, there's a large number of people here who are not INTPs. How could Blob's INTPness disrupt the general flow of day-to-day forum life?

Meaning, his percieved infractions + being INTP = not that bad

As opposed to

His perceived infractions + not being INTP = bad


This:

His posts weren't purely religion-centric, and I thought he was sharing some fascinating line-of-thinking in this ...barren and relatively inactive forum. Not that my opinion should matter, just a comment like any other comment.

After a while you grow tired of the "Hey Im INTP, do you do X weird behavior as well" threads.

 

[Jennywocky]

However, if people really thought he was that disruptive then I guess that is another thing. I just want to go on record as saying, I still dont get/like it(FWIW). If Da Blob came on the forum suggesting he was not INTP, then I could see how it would be disruptive(with negative connotations), but as far as I can tell he was INTP and thus I feel even more uneasy about this decision. There should be a place for him here as well.

It's kind of hard to tell. Usually a "skeptical mind" is one of the quintessential facets of the INTP personality, but his degree of faith meant that certain core areas of his life were not allowed to experience a skeptical review. Sometimes if someone is brought up in a particular environment, they'll view life a certain way; and after my own many years living in JesusWorld, I understand a lot of the pressure of feeling like one has to believe certain things as basic assumptions of the world, even if one is skeptical of everything else. Blob had a rational faculty involved in his posts, but I can't tell you what type he was due to his faith's need to leave areas of his thinking unchallenged. Was that part of him, or was that imposed on him?

Like you suggested, though, INTP + off-kilter/culture clash = fine, non-INTP + off-kilter/culture clash will get you canned. I've seen it happen on INTPc all the time.

I guess this just feels like a good opportunity for mods to communicate what is and is not acceptable behaviour - this case is ambiguous to us, so as you said it's a little disconcerting, and would likely benefit clarification.

I'd be interested in seeing that, but it doesn't seem to fit with the admins' approach to things... it's a little too formalized. (Aside from the fact that once you set specifics out, members tend to exploit it in order to get leverage to stay.... the powers that be would hate to feel locked into a particular outcome because members try to game more explicit parts of the system, if they decide the rules are not adequate for a new situation.)

The heat of the mods' hate for Blob will melt me, allowing him to escape! Or he could just eat his way out.

Uh.... ohhh.... wow, my mind just doesn't even want to conjure all the various imagery up for that one...!

 

[Melllvar]

Not to take sides, I've probably caused enough trouble, but for Da Blob's sake I have to say he did have some pretty intelligent and insightful comments from time to time. Maybe those get missed if you're always arguing with him about religion and such. I mostly skip those topics so he never bothered me at all, in fact he sent me a google wave invite (by request) when I first joined the forum and before it (gWave) was public.

-------------------------

Also, and again not taking sides (it wouldn't be this side anyways), iirc, the forum rules do state the ever-vague: "Don't be a nuisance." For those who never read them (I usually don't either).

 

[BigApplePi]

Agreed, I avoid any discussions with him in it because the guy isn't conducive to conducting a rational conversation.

I don't know how to weigh in on this. I've always liked Da Blob.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an irrational conversation. Well yes and no. There is always something behind what the person is saying.

Spoiler

There is a real person behind his posts. Who is he and what is his makup? Hard to see in this medium I admit. This is true for anyone on this forum, you and me.

The task is how to figure it out. If I can't figure it, I keep quiet or go to another thread. I can always come back and see later if something will clear up for me.

Ban Da Blob? Sure someone decided so, but lets weigh this against not only his large contributions but his ability to stimulate others. Don't forget the idea of systems. If Da Blob started out with certain premises, and we all have them, where do they lead? They may not be of value to everyone, but they will be to others.

Do you respect Agent Intellect? I do.

I've probably had more disagreements and debates with Blob than anyone on this site, but nothing he's said or done seemed worthy of getting banned because of it.

Few systems are as controversial as religion. If the premises are based on something other than logic, the practices issue logically therefrom. The practices can be a great comfort for people. They can be quite disturbing if you belong to a different crowd. If the premises are not subject to reason (hasn't Da Blob spoke of subjectivity), that can bother an INTP.

At the same time if a moderator chose banning, there was a reason. Anyone have his last deleted post? Email me. We might be able to make a judgment as to why ... unless it was due to an overall impression as Jennywocky seems to be saying.

Perhaps Da Blob can return after a while. I would like to see that. We can learn from each other.

 

[BigApplePi]

You are biased. You're thinking a blob of cheese.

 

[Felan]

My main beef (and this is my perception and I could be flawed in it) with Da Blob is he always asserted everything he said as strongly and certainly as he could, even things that were so wildly subjective that their only truth was in the more fevered moments of the beholder. He was drunk on his belief and it gave him beer googles that made every ugly thing he saw fuckable.

Disagree or question him and he would shove or dismiss you with such forceful certainty that it was just wildly unpleasant.

Lastly, if less Blob means more Wocky I am all in favor of it.

 

[NoID10ts]

Blob is the kind of Christian that seems to be absolutely certain in at least the core of what he believes. I've almost come to the conclusion that there is no discussion to be had with believers like that. My wife, for instance, is just such a believer. Where religion is concerned, a cold wind blows between us because there is nothing I can say and nothing she can say that will make any difference. No one wants to be labeled "closed minded," but if you're not convinced, you're not convinced, no matter which side of the fence you're on. When you get believers like that on a discussion oriented forum with unbelievers, the inevitable result is a whole lot of futile (and circular) conversations that degrade into abandonment or insults born out of frustration.

If this forum has taught me anything, it's that.

BUT ...

I, like Blob, continue getting into the discussions anyway. Maybe it's madness.

 

[BigApplePi]

A: I'm absolutely sure I like popcorn.
B: I don't like it. It breaks my teeth.

A: I'm not concerned about my teeth. I don't believe that's a problem.
B: You are wrong. Sooner or later it will break your teeth.

A. You're barking up the wrong tree. My teeth are fine and I love popcorn.
B. You are foolish for loving popcorn. Your love is futile.

Anything wrong or right here? Is the discussion at an end? Is one or the other out of order?

 

[NoID10ts]

A: I'm absolutely sure I like popcorn.
B: I don't like it. It breaks my teeth.

A: I'm not concerned about my teeth. I don't believe that's a problem.
B: You are wrong. Sooner or later it will break your teeth.

A. You're barking up the wrong tree. My teeth are fine and I love popcorn.
B. You are foolish for loving popcorn. Your love is futile.

Anything wrong or right here? Is the discussion at an end? Is one or the other out of order?

Maybe I'm just tired, but I honestly don't know where you're going with this or what it's even supposed to mean.

 

[kantor1003]

Anything wrong or right here? Is the discussion at an end? Is one or the other out of order?

Yes, we should definitely ban person B

 

[BigApplePi]

It's okay. I think I mean it's okay if the other guy likes something else. It's okay and there is no strong need to change them if the argument is not strong enough. "One man's meat is another man's poison" the saying goes. No need to change the other guy, but there is a need to know what oneself wants.

 

[BigApplePi]

A: I'm absolutely sure I like popcorn.
B: I don't like it. It breaks my teeth.

A: I'm not concerned about my teeth. I don't believe that's a problem.
B: You are wrong. Sooner or later it will break your teeth.

A. You're barking up the wrong tree. My teeth are fine and I love popcorn.
B. You are foolish for loving popcorn. Your love is futile.

Anything wrong or right here? Is the discussion at an end? Is one or the other out of order?

Yes, we should definitely ban person B

B. In your place I would be concerned I'd injure myself. Why do you believe what you believe?
A. My belief is mine. What you believe is good for you. I appreciate your care for me.

 

[NoID10ts]

It's okay. I think I mean it's okay if the other guy likes something else. It's okay and there is no strong need to change them if the argument is not strong enough. "One man's meat is another man's poison" the saying goes. No need to change the other guy, but there is a need to know what oneself wants.

Ah, I got it.

For me, the problem is that for believers like Blob, it's not okay and they stop at nothing to make sure you know that. Add talk of hell and damnation to the equation and you get a powder keg of a discussion. I admit that part of my past angst towards him was really a projection. I've felt suffocated by evangelicalism in my present context and sometimes he (and others) have made convenient targets so that I maintain peace at home.

Last night, my 6 year old started telling me about Jesus entering his heart. He even did this "dirty heart" illustration for me that he learned from my wife. How do I tell my 6 year old that it's a bunch of bullshit and his mother is silly for telling him stuff like that? Hello INTPforum ...

 

[kantor1003]

Sounds like a bomb waiting to explode.

 

[Felan]

Ah, I got it.

For me, the problem is that for believers like Blob, it's not okay and they stop at nothing to make sure you know that. Add talk of hell and damnation to the equation and you get a powder keg of a discussion. I admit that part of my past angst towards him was really a projection. I've felt suffocated by evangelicalism in my present context and sometimes he (and others) have made convenient targets so that I maintain peace at home.

Last night, my 6 year old started telling me about Jesus entering his heart. He even did this "dirty heart" illustration for me that he learned from my wife. How do I tell my 6 year old that it's a bunch of bullshit and his mother is silly for telling him stuff like that? Hello INTPforum ...

I think a person's actions matter more than belief. There is a lot of good that comes from religion and a lot of bad.

Can you talk to your wife about the boundaries of what is acceptable and not acceptable within the scope of religion? You can you are fine with your 6 year old embracing religion but not if it means they condemn others or take the stance that "evolution" is a bad word? There is room for reasonable belief that doesn't swallow rationality whole and spit up the bones.

 

[NoID10ts]

I didn't mean to start a discussion about my family situation. I just wanted to make a point that it's a no win situation when one party claims certainty that can't be demonstrated nor shared with someone who disagrees. Blob, in my opinion, represents one side of that dynamic which, when added to this forum, led to counter productive discussions.

 

[Moocow]

I don't know if anyone else in the thread has mentioned as I only skimmed through, but a lot of his latest posts were simply saying "Do I have to repeat myself? "...which needless to say, is not good contributing anymore.

He repeatedly claimed himself that he had nothing new to say. Granted, I haven't kept up with all of his posts, so this is just my impression. Is it worthwhile posting if you say everything you have to say and then proceed to just advertise previous posts constantly while outright rejecting debate? Adymus took an oddly congruent route of posting as well.

Also, his arguments seemed absurd. Along the lines of "x is not up for debate" then proceeding to debate / insult others about it.

+1 here on being dissuaded from a topic by lengthy, circular, Blob-centric arguments.

 

[BigApplePi]

Last night, my 6 year old started telling me about Jesus entering his heart. He even did this "dirty heart" illustration for me that he learned from my wife. How do I tell my 6 year old that it's a bunch of bullshit and his mother is silly for telling him stuff like that? Hello INTPforum ...

I'm glad you mentioned marriage because my wife and I are, uh, married. Sometimes I don't know WHAT she's talking about and we argue. (There is no time to think like on this forum.) So if we are in a close situation there is going to be a conflict. This may be unpleasant but after a time we back off and there is a chance for me to see: she is over there. I am here. Let it be.

I see two possibilities: belief and doubt. If we doubt maybe we can have a profitable and fun exchange. If we believe? Well if I believe something deeply enough how am I going to explain it to you? Have you the right to pass judgment on anything or anyone so complicated as me? I don't think that's possible unless you want to force me to give in under duress.

Hell and damnation? I've posted a lot on another bulletin board about religion. What is my experience? Well it's strange because there are one or maybe two born again Christians who are solid in their beliefs and will tell you what they believe. Then there are a whole bunch of atheists who beat up on them and neither side budges. Where am I? Well I'm the INTP. I never take sides because I can't. I listen to the born agains and ask questions. They like me because I listen. Then why don't I ask them "Am I going to hell myself?" I'm not sure why. I will guess it's because that's them and not me. For me that's not a driving issue.

Technical system question: Who is going to hell?
Answer: Any Christian who does not keep the faith he/she believes in.
A Christian (culturally like myself) that is not a concern so I never ask the question. For me its not a rational question. For them it is. For an atheistic, the question is ridiculous. They don't buy the hypothesis so going to hell should not be an issue at all. Part of my attitude is not to be an atheist either. Belonging to a system with a lot of tenets isn't my thing. I am interested in them though. If it's your thing, I will honor that and leave you be because I'm not in a position to judge another complicated human being.

I'm no expert on children, but your son will sense where you are at. How about saying nothing about his mother's belief and just telling him yours? I don't know what that would do, but I grew up much like your son. My mom was the believer and my dad said nothing. Just didn't ever go to church. I grew up honoring my mother emotionally but not taking on the details for myself.

I didn't know I was going to talk this much, lol.

 

[Jennywocky]

A: I'm absolutely sure I like popcorn.
B: I don't like it. It breaks my teeth.

A: I'm not concerned about my teeth. I don't believe that's a problem.
B: You are wrong. Sooner or later it will break your teeth.

A. You're barking up the wrong tree. My teeth are fine and I love popcorn.
B. You are foolish for loving popcorn. Your love is futile.

Anything wrong or right here? Is the discussion at an end? Is one or the other out of order?

Yes. Consider it my IP sensibilities, but I get quickly turned off by B, who continually seems to phrase their opinions in ways that are criticizing others rather than simply describing one's personal preferences. it is quite possible to have very different beliefs and yet share them in a way where B is not aiming their criticism at A but simply sharing their own view in a parallel fashion and asking questions as a way to compare and contrast.

For some people, B's approach will roll off their backs. For other people, it feels like a crossing of one's personal boundaries and devours energy so that A can maintain those walls and keep B away. That's really an energy sink that serves no good purpose, and so A will eventually get the hell away from B.... or, at the very least, pie him in the face.

 

[nanook]

Last night, my 6 year old started telling me about Jesus entering his heart. He even did this "dirty heart" illustration for me that he learned from my wife. How do I tell my 6 year old that it's a bunch of bullshit and his mother is silly for telling him stuff like that? Hello INTPforum ...

don't, silly! unless you want him to stab you, once he is 18+yrs

How about saying nothing about his mother's belief and just telling him yours?

verry reasonable approach.

 

[BigApplePi]

Da Blob: 2 Reasoning Kinds

I don't know if anyone else in the thread has mentioned as I only skimmed through, but a lot of his latest posts were simply saying "Do I have to repeat myself? "...which needless to say, is not good contributing anymore.

He repeatedly claimed himself that he had nothing new to say. Granted, I haven't kept up with all of his posts, so this is just my impression. Is it worthwhile posting if you say everything you have to say and then proceed to just advertise previous posts constantly while outright rejecting debate? Adymus took an oddly congruent route of posting as well.

Also, his arguments seemed absurd. Along the lines of "x is not up for debate" then proceeding to debate / insult others about it.

+1 here on being dissuaded from a topic by lengthy, circular, Blob-centric arguments.

Woe is me for being an INTP. Here is a rational response (I think).

There are two kinds of reasoning: linear and "organic."

Both are valid. I'm fond of linear reasoning which means looking at or searching for premises and the probability of conclusions therefrom.

Organic "reasoning" is different. That is when there is an enormous experiential situation containing too many premises to list linearly. Then one weaves a story from that. The good storyteller draws you in and you believe ... as long as the atmosphere hangs in there. Think of good moves versus bad movies. I believe in BOTH forms of reasoning.

BTW mathematics favors the linear method but other systems such as nuclear physics depend on experience so that's why I can't knock other systems outside of mathematics. One has to live with the way things are.

 

[Moocow]

Oh, I thought that was just called bullshitting. I'm having trouble finding sources online that mention "organic reasoning" but what you describe is an aesthetic approach, and not what I'd classify as reasoning... or, not the kind of reasoning I'm interested in.

I think it could be better called persuasion, and I agree that a good storyteller must be persuasive.

 

[Cognisant]

*walks in wielding the still bloody executioner's axe like a gentleman's cane*

Well this is fascinating.
To shed some light on the issue I first received my orders from Loveofreason via Auburn, then after requesting confirmation, from the lady of dismay herself, "off with his head" she said.

*twirls the axe as he walks around*
I'll admit there was no hesitation on my part, indeed this was a course of action I suggested quite some time ago, but please do not be mistaken, I did not and will not ever ban someone simply because I want to, had that been the case I would have banned Da Blob long ago.

Instead it appears Lor has her own reasons, she's calling herself the Queen now.
Maybe she's buying my loyalty with blood (that only just occurred to me).
Maybe she just wants this discussion to take place?
Maybe she's just gone crazy.

 

[crippli]

Last night, my 6 year old started telling me about Jesus entering his heart. He even did this "dirty heart" illustration for me that he learned from my wife. How do I tell my 6 year old that it's a bunch of bullshit and his mother is silly for telling him stuff like that? Hello INTPforum ...

Perhaps you can provide a counter view with all the negativity of religion, so that your son get a balanced view, the positives seems to be well covered. Then your son can make an educated decision. Does that sound reasonable?

Regarding the banning(s). I'd just like to point out a few things that is easy to forget in all this blood shedding.

The one banned is ostracised, socially excluded, and rejected.

The moderators are required to inflict emotional pain.

And the rest of us know what will happen to us if we cross the line.

And the ongoing reaction to bannings show they are a rich emotional feast.

Bannings are la petite mort (the little death). A foretaste of what is in store for all and each of us at the end of our lives. And interestingly, a taste of what we experience at the end of love making.

Yes, banning is being dumped. It is the end of our electronic romance.

So Blob gets to see how it's like to be Jesus. Personally, I think I did well, last time I was banned. Much better then the executioners. I still think bannings are barbaric though. But the irony is not missed on me.